Really Houston? (safety, car, bike)

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

Yes, they're always the problem. It's never the guy doing 60 in a 45, or the idiot with half of his truck in the bike lane because he doesn't "see anyone there".

Yes, on a major thoroughfare with no bike lane during rush hour, the bicyclist is always the problem.

It's no different than the person driving 55 mph on I-10 between San Antonio and Houston in the left lane. He doesn't think he's the problem, but he is.

Originally Posted by Nairobi

You're clearly one-sided on this, and you're not even trying to hide it.

One sided? I'm one of the people advocating more bike lanes and only have an issue with bikes on major thoroughfares during rush hour. How is that one sided?

One sided is "Bikes aren't the problem, cars are."

Originally Posted by Nairobi

Like most states, motor fuel tax only pays for a percentage of roadways. The rest comes from other taxes and funds, which all people are paying for in some form or fashion.

Please break down the % of the budget that comes from gas taxes, registration fees and then other sources. Links please.

Originally Posted by Nairobi

Your logic also rests on the flawed assumption that cyclists don't own vehicles. Since I'm sure many if not most of them do, they would be paying for road use with your alleged user fees of gas tax and car registration. How about pedestrians? Can they not use the crosswalks if they haven't contributed to said user fees?

If I own two cars, I have to pay for each vehicles registration fees. I don't get to say, "Well, I paid for that one, so I don't need to pay anything towards this one."

Pedestrians? Really? Pedestrians aren't allowed to walk down the roads. The can be ticketed.

Originally Posted by Nairobi

You claim that requiring cyclists to take on certain taxes and fees would give them a right to road use and that they would subsequently earn the respect of motorists. You and I both know that's a lie. If fellow motorists can't even respect each other, there's no way they'll give any kind of breathing room to people on bicycles.

No. Cyclists need to pay fees to help with the costs of more bike lanes.

People will respect cyclists in bike lanes but not the ones screwing up traffic at rush hour.

Originally Posted by Nairobi

If they aren't breaking any laws, this is something I suggest you just get over. On any given day, my trip from Point A to Point B is always interrupted by a motorist and not a cyclist.

Whenever I've encountered a cyclist on a major thoroughfare without bike lanes during rush hour, they are screwing things up much worse than the vast majority of cars are.

Originally Posted by Nairobi

Honestly, I'm starting to feel like a lot of the resentment towards cyclists comes from those people who don't have the will or courage to do what they do.

It takes no courage to be inconsiderate and have the holier than thou attitude, "I'm going to use my bike on Weslayan at 5:30 regardless of what those car people think and how bad it backs up traffic."

It takes no courage to stand in front of a building entrance blocking a door while talking to a friend. It takes no courage to yack on your cell phone when you get called to the front of the line while you slow down everybody behind you. It takes no courage to leave your shopping cart in the middle of the aisle blocking others from passing as you look at the calorie count of the different bagels.

[kylejack]

Originally Posted by ToyYot

No. He was riding down a major road at rush hour with a big sign sticking out from his bike for no other reason then to p*ss everyone off. That's not constructive, that's selfish and antagonistic.

Cyclists are not blocking traffic, they *are* traffic. Cycling isn't just for recreation. Some people ride to get to and from work. Not everyone can afford or wants a car. The state of Texas classifies bikes as vehicles, so if you don't agree go take it up with the legislature.

Originally Posted by ToyYot

I actually support anything that makes riding safer but the attitude that the only solution is the status quo on laws that have existed as long as I've been alive is, to steal a phrase, pig headed at best.

The three foot safe passing ordinance was passed into law last year by City Council.

[kylejack]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

It takes no courage to be inconsiderate and have the holier than thou attitude, "I'm going to use my bike on Weslayan at 5:30 regardless of what those car people think and how bad it backs up traffic."

This is the crux of the problem. This is a public safety issue, but you and others view it as a convenience issue. It took you 20 seconds to safely pass a cyclist by changing lanes, and now you're going to rage about it for hours. Your convenience is not more important than others' safety, and bikes are a legitimate form of transportation as far as the laws of Texas are concerned.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by kylejack

This is the crux of the problem. This is a public safety issue, but you and others view it as a convenience issue. It took you 20 seconds to safely pass a cyclist by changing lanes, and now you're going to rage about it for hours. Your convenience is not more important than others' safety, and bikes are a legitimate form of transportation as far as the laws of Texas are concerned.

No, it's a common sense issue.

Rage? Seriously, you think my discussing this is a rage? Well, wouldn't the world be a great place if this is how everybody went into a rage? I think at one point I used the word "silly".

Any honest person who has seen a cyclist in the scenario I keep pointing out will acknowledge that it is not a safe or efficient situation.

Hey, but if you believe my solution of more bike lanes is flawed, let me know, and I'll make sure to vote against it if I ever have the option on a ballot.

[kylejack]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

Any honest person who has seen a cyclist in the scenario I keep pointing out will acknowledge that it is not a safe or efficient situation.

Nice No True Scotsman fallacy. Anyone who disagrees with you isn't being honest. Switching more people from cars to bikes creates a lot less traffic. While there may be some challenges with passing, in general they're taking up a lot less space that would be occupied by a car.

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

Hey, but if you believe my solution of more bike lanes is flawed, let me know, and I'll make sure to vote against it if I ever have the option on a ballot.

I support bike lanes, and where they're not present I support cyclists riding in the road. We're never going to reach a density of bike lanes that riding on roads is never necessary. Not all cyclists are just out for a fun ride, some are actually living their lives, like going to the grocery store, or going to work.

[mumbles]

His main objective is to let people know about the new law. He has gotten lots more attention than the PSA the city of Houston made about the new law.

[jerbear30]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

I have posted on this board several times about how Houston should be spending more money now on things like public transportation and bike lanes. I've said many times that we need to start seriously investing now. My argument has been that as Houston density increases, there is not enough room to expand roads inside the loop any further. I've said that as property values continue to grow, there will be less parking. In order for Houston to be a competitive city and a city people are drawn to, we need to understand that our core cannot remain car centric.

If you look for some of the older threads talking about public transportation in Houston, you will find one of these comments I've made.

My points here are:
1. We need more bike lanes.
2. Bike riders need to have skin in the game.
3. People riding bikes on major thoroughfares need to be properly trained; therefore, licensing (to ride on these thoroughfares) should be required.
4. Bikes should be restricted from major thoroughfares without bike lanes during rush hours.

Is there any particular point you are opposed? If so, why?

Point one I absolutely agree with you about, but that's clearly not your major concern with cyclists. Your concern judging by the amount of words you dedicate to the topic, is overwhelmingly the regulation of the cyclist.

I don't know how to respond to point two since it's quite obvious that cyclist have WAY more "skin in the game" than do the drivers.

Point three and four would require a whole new legal category for the cyclist and probably for the pedestrian too and I'm not sure how you'd approach this. In general, points three and four both seem to undercut your usual pseudo-libertarian stance since they would take a lot of money to get these done and it would also mean more government restriction.

The very fact that you needed to "distill" what your actual points are, though, is proof that these points don't match your rhetoric, which simply baits progressives into responding. My issue with that rhetoric is simply that you know better.

[gsmj]

Originally Posted by kylejack

Except that he is just using his voice and expressing his opinion.

Which part about the flag scratching cars as they drive by is just "vocal"? My issue with this biker is that instead of educating drivers that they still need to give bikers 3 feet even if they each have their own lane, he's only making them mad as they don't understand that he's trying to teach them by example, but instead just assume that he's acting out in frustration.

The problem with the dedicated bike lane in Houston is that drivers in the outside lane next to it assume that because the biker has their own lane, they don't have to give them the same 3 foot courtesy they would if they shared the driver's lane. I'm not saying the driver is right for making such an assumption, I'm just stating what even I thought up until this thread was posted, as I wasn't intimately familiar with the new 3 foot ordinance like most other Houstonians out there.

Here's my question though: What happens when stopped at an intersection by a traffic light, this biker in his dedicated lane with no bikes in front of him moves to the front of the intersection? Wouldn't his pole and flag scrape all the sides of the cars that are stopped in front of him as he over takes them? Does he practice what he preaches and stops at the back of the line of cars so as to not scratch the cars that obviously aren't required to give him 3 feet because they're already in front of him, and stopped?

Originally Posted by Nairobi

Yes, they're always the problem. It's never the guy doing 60 in a 45, or the idiot with half of his truck in the bike lane because he doesn't "see anyone there".

Unrelated, one of my many driving pet-peeves (among non-turn signal usage for lane changes and right hand turns, slow left lane cruisers, and drivers who read anything from a phone to a book to a phone book) are drivers who pull past the solid white stop stripe at intersections and stop only at the last of the 3 stripes, which signifies the further boundary of the pedestrian crosswalk - especially downtown.

[vegankris]

I think I'm going to start riding with a flag, but I'll add a piece of rebar to end... in the last week I've been buzzed by three drivers and run off the road by one. My safety is paramount. If you won't give me three feet, then maybe you deserve to have your paint job wrecked. Cuz the alternative is I'm lying dead in the bike lane.

[ethanw]

Nice knowing you. How childish.... If your safety is paramount just stay off the god damn streets... don't get out there and be an effing hero.... one day we will sort this sh*it out but till then stop provoking drivers

Originally Posted by vegankris

I think I'm going to start riding with a flag, but I'll add a piece of rebar to end... in the last week I've been buzzed by three drivers and run off the road by one. My safety is paramount. If you won't give me three feet, then maybe you deserve to have your paint job wrecked. Cuz the alternative is I'm lying dead in the bike lane.